I got further than you, to page 5. I am not impressed. I won't go so far as to say that none of the women had experienced PTSD or sexual assault. I'm not so naive as to believe that doesn't happen. But this article is clearly biased toward depicting the military as toxic to women. Shameful...the whole lot of them.

Didn't get past page one, but if I read that right my comments below are on target. If not, sorry. Convince me there's a reason to get past page one:

So let me get this right. It's Bush's fault, and the war's fault, and the men's fault, but it's not the fault of those who ignored all the better advice than to put women in the GWOT equivalent of foxholes? Right.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say women belong in the Army/Marines in all the roles a man fills and then make an issue out of it when they fail to live up to the standards expected of men.

Likewise, you can't make any more of an issue of womens' PTSD than that of a man when you push for women to be in combat.

Of course, one can logically argue that this was the point of these morons in getting women into combat positions in the first place. They wanted women in those roles so that when (not 'if' in the minds of the advocates) they failed the blame can be placed on the military itself and discredit it because it is incompatible with women. Self fulfilling prophecy when they highlight the failures of women and hide the women who have done very well.

I'll echo what MAJ D says above -- you can't have it both ways. If women want to serve alongside men, they can't fall back on their unqiue "victim" status when they can't cut it.

Also, as someone who has prosecuted many Soldiers for sexual assault crimes, I can't help but laugh at the meaningless 'statistics' about sexual assault prosecution the NYT is using to push its agenda. Many Soldiers get jail time or their careers ended for sexual acts that occur regularly on college campuses and in the 'real world.' But there are very, very good reasons why many of these cases aren't prosecuted -- the primary one being that the victims won't cooperate.

I skimmed to the end. Now, the NYT is not a reliable reporter of fact. The article doesn't tell us anything about women in combat positions. It tells us what leftists want us to think about women in combat positions.

But if you do take it at face value, a different headline suggests itself. "Women in combat: OOPS! Bad idea after all".